Has Noah's Ark Been Found? Part I

For two or three years I have
been regularly confronted with the double question, "Has Noah's ark been
found, and if so, why aren't Adventist archaeologists in the forefront of
proclaiming this discovery?" This article is the first of a two part series
to answer these questions. In Part I, I will review the biblical and archaeological
evidence that has been proposed to prove Noah's ark has been found. In Part
II I will discuss the scientific claims about "Noah's ark", in the light
of how to evaluate the truthfulness of claims that will arise in the future.

The reader should know that
I write this article sympathetically. Nothing would please me more than
the finding of Noah's ark. I am a Bible student, an archaeologist, and a
curator of an archaeological museum, The discovery of any ancient artifact
is exciting for me, but the discovery of Noah's ark would be a singular
event: undoubtedly, the most significant archaeological find in history.
Also, like the majority of the readers of the Adventist Review I
believe in the biblical story of the flood. How could I not be excited if
such a relic was found?!

The Durupinar Site in the
Tendurek Mountains

In the last century, the primary
place where most searchers for Noah's ark have looked is the traditional
Mount Ararat (Agri Dagh), the highest of the eastern Turkish mountains.
The reason that this mountain has been the focus of investigation is a misunderstanding
of Genesis 8:4,1 and some late traditions regarding Agri Dagh.2
While Agri Dagh is still being searched by some, most queries that have
recently come to me are about a boat-shaped form often called Durupinar,
which lies approximately 17 miles south of Agri Dagh.

This site was discovered by
Llhan Durupinar, a captain in the Turkish army.3 While reviewing
aerial photographs taken for NATO's Geodetic Survey of Turkey, Capt. Durupinar
was startled to see a ship-like form on one of the photographs. The subsequent
announcement of this strangely shaped form caused a furor in the U.S. and
European media, which led to on-site investigations. Noorbergen recounts
the distressing developments preceding his, George Vandeman's and Don Loveridge's
own expedition in 1960, which included Captain Durupinar, and resulted in
a military escort and permission to investigate the site. This was the first
scientific investigation of the Durupinar site. After two days of digging
(and even using dynamite) inside the "boat-shaped" formation the disappointed
expedition members found only "dirt, rocks and more dirt." The official
news release issued by George Vandeman, the team leader, concluded that
"there were no visible archaeological remains" and that this formation "was
a freak of nature and not man-made."4

While most of the scholarly
community has considered the nature of the Durupinar site as settled, i.e.,
a natural formation, at least one Seventh-day Adventist scholar has maintained
some interest in this formation.5 William H. Shea,6
after reading Noorbergen's account about the expedition to the "boat-shaped"
formation, published an article in 1976 suggesting that rather than being
the ark, perhaps, this site was the "mold or cast of the Ark." Shea acknowledge
that the Durupinar site had no archaeological evidence, but considered the
formation's length, approximating the biblical ark's dimensions, curious
at the least.7

Recently, Ron Wyatt has, through
his book8 and video, created an interest among lay members in
this boat-shaped site.9 Wyatt claims that the Turkish government
credits him with finding the Durupinar site, and thus, the discoverer of
Noah's ark (p. 1, 4, 11, 22-23, 39).10 This is an unusual claim
since this site was discovered in 1959, as noted above, and even acknowledged,
if somewhat lightly, by Wyatt himself (p. iv) . Since there has been much
recent interest in the Durupinar site, and most of the questions that have
come to me have been about the claims of Wyatt that the Durupinar site is
Noah's ark, I will evaluate his claims.

Is the Durupinar Site the
Site of Noah's Ark?

The one undisputed fact that
the Durupinar site has in its favor is it length, which is roughly the expected
length of the ark.11 Wyatt's suggestion that the reason the Durupinar
site (the ark) is 138 feet wide instead of the expected 86 feet, is that
the ark has been splayed (pp. 14-15), is unconvincing. The truth is that
the Durupinar site is about 50 per cent too wide to be the ark. While this
point should not be over stressed, I feel that Wyatt's claims for the Durupinar
site based on its length is out of proportion. A fair evaluation of the
Durupinar site is that its length is approximately the length of the ark,
while its width is twice as wide.

Wyatt says that the shape size
of the boat-shaped formation "defies any other explanation" and it is "the
only formation of its kind on planet earth"(p. 13). These are very difficult
claims to prove, since he offers no alternative suggestions himself. Fortunately,
Wyatt has not been the only one to analyze the Durupinar site. John D. Morris,
who has graduate degrees in geological engineerinq, includinq a Ph.D., and
who is himself an avid searcher for Noah's ark, has made two geological
surveys of this site.12 His conclusion is that the Durupinar
site is unique in its geological formation but that it is a geologically
explainable phenomenon. Writes Morris,

"Just as water flows around a rock in a stream bed,
the site has acquired a streamlined shape, due to the dynamics of the slowly
flowing material."13 Agri Dagh is itself a volcano, while the
entire region is volcanic. In other words, according to Morris, the "boat-shapedness"
of the Durupinar site comes from the lava flowing around an obstruction.

The Anchor14
Stones

Wyatt sees the many anchor stones
he saw in 1977 of "tremendous significance" in proving the Durupinar site
is the true Noah's ark (pp. 5, 21-22, 24). He claims to have seen 13 such
anchor stones, eight of which have inscriptions that make a direct connection
between the anchors and Noah (p. 21). Wyatt claims that the crosses chiseled
on their surface are from the Byzantine and Crusader periods, but he rules
out the possibility that the anchors, themselves, were crafted during those
times because some of the anchors have no crosses or inscriptions (pp. 5,
21). Although the stones that Wyatt has found are as much as 14 miles from
the Durupinar site, Wyatt has decided that the anchors were cut away from
the ark as it approached the mountains leaving them all lying in a straight
line.

When exactly these stones were
set, in place, and by whom, may be debated, but the biblical account does
not match Wyatt's reconstruction for the placement of the anchors in their
present location. He would see an ark guided by Noah, dropping the anchors
as the ark approach the large mountains of the area, while the Bible portrays
Noah's role as passive. The Bible's chronological outline reports that the
ark was "snagged" by one of the mountains before the mountain tops were
visible and that the ark rested on the 17th day of the seventh month, while
the mountains became visible on the first day of the tenth month. It is
recorded that it was another 40 days before Noah even opened the window
(Genesis 8:4-6).

Adding the number of days between
when the ark rested (17th day of the seventh month) to the time when the
mountains became visible (on the first day of the tenth month) lets us know
that the tops of the mountains did not become visible for over 70 days after
the ark was resting on ground. This means that the place where Noah's ark
settled must be one of the higher mountains in its region, since for the
ark to be resting in a low area with the mountains around still covered
by water would be impossible. Agri Dagh is 10,000 feet higher and easily
visible from the Durupinar site, it would, therefore, be impossible for
the ark to be at the Durupinar site while Agri Dagh was still covered with
water.15 The three verses of Genesis 8:4-6 are strong evidence
that the Durupinar site cannot be related to Noah's ark.

It is most likely that these
"anchor" stones originally had nothing to do with Christianity or the Flood.
According to Abraham Terian16 the stones that Wyatt has found
are not unique to the Durupinar area but are scattered throughout ancient
Armenia.17 They are known to have been crafted by pagans and
used in their worship long before Christianity came to Armenia. What Wyatt
has identified as "rope holes" were originally niches for lamps. When the
local Armenians became Christians, says Terian, many of these pagan stele
were Christianized with inscriptions and symbols.18 This is why
many of them are found in Christian cemeteries. They were holy stones, first
for the pagans, then the Christians.

There is a fairly easy way to
determine whether these stones were originally anchors or pagan stele, or
at least to determine where they originated. Chemical and isotopic analyses
and mineralogical tests could determine the origin of the stone from which
these stele are carved, or they could say whether or not they are unique
to the area they are found today. If these stones were crafted by Noah instead
of people indigenous to this region, we would expect that the stone anchors
would be composed of rock similar to where Noah started from, not where
he stopped.

Without these tests it is impossible
to be certain where these stones have originated. However, the evidence
we do have causes me to conclude that these stones ware not crafted by Noah's
workmen, but were probably made near where they are found. According to
Shea, all of the anchors are made of basalt, a stone common to volcanic
regions. Since the entire region of the Tendurek mountains19
is volcanic, basalt is common to this area.20 Since the anchors
are made of a rock commonly found in the Agri Dagh region, the most likely
conclusion is that these stones originated in this region and, thus, were
originally pagan stele not anchors.

Summary and Conclusion

For the past several years it
has been claimed by Ron Wyatt that he has discovered Noah's ark. The site
he claims to have "discovered," however, was originally discovered in 1959
by a Turkish captain. While the Durupinar site is about the right length
for Noah's ark, it is, in addition, too wide to be Noah's ark. Wyatt has
claimed that the "boat-shapedness" of this formation can only be explained
by its being Noah's ark, but both Shea and Morris have offered other plausible
explanations. Likewise, Wyatt has argued that the standing stones he has
found are anchors, while Terian is aware of similar stones outside the Durupinar
site area that were pagan cultic stones later converted by Christians for
Christian purposes.

In Part II of this article we
will evaluate the scientific evidence provided by Wyatt for the Durupinar
site as well as review his other "discoveries." We will end Part II with
suggestions for evaluating claims sure to arise in the future.

Endnotes

Gen 8:4 says that the ark
rested in the "mountains of Ararat. Ararat was a mountainous country.
See also 2 Kings 19:37; Isaiah 37:38 and Jeremiah 51:27. That Ararat was
a country instead of a mountain should not surprise Seventh-day Adventists
since this same information was printed in the Seventh-dayAdventistBibleDictionary over 30 years ago. Horn, Siegfried H.,
Commentary Reference Series, Vol. S, Review and Herald: 1960, "Ararat."

For a reliable summary of
the early and numerous locations of Noah's ark see, Bailey, Lloyd R. Noah:
ThePersonandtheStoryinHistoryandTradition, Columbia, South Carolina:
University of South Carolina Press, 1989, pp. 61-115. For example, JabelJudi(Cudi
Dagh),located near Mosul, was accepted by Jews, Christians and Muslims
as the ark's landing place during the early Islamic period, p. 67.

Information about the discovery
of the Durupinar site is taken from Noorbergen, Rene, TheArkFile. Mountain View: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1974,
pp. 116ff.

Noorbergen, p. 128 and an
aerial and two ground-level pictures of this site and a short article
detailing the finding of this site and its subsequent investigation were
reported in Life, September 5, 1960.

For an example of the general
dismissal of the Durupinar site consider the cursory treatment given by
Lloyd R. Bailey, Noah: ThePersonandtheStoryinHistoryandTradition, University of South Carolina Press,
1989, p. 92, "The object in the aerial photos of 1959 has already been
confirmed as a natural formation."

Formerly a professor at the
SDA Theological Seminary and currently an associate director of the Biblical
Research Institute of the General Conference.

"The Ark-shaped Formation
in the Tendurek Mountains of Eastern Turkey," CreationResearch
Science Quarterly 3:1976, pp. 91. William Shea is one of the most
creative and best published of Adventist scholars. He is well respected
by both Adventist and non-Adventist scholars. To this day he believes
that the question of the location of Noah's ark is unsettled. Due to the
large number of queries the Institute of Archaeology has assembled a collection
of letters and papers that speak to the question, "Is the Durupinar site
Noah's Ark?" Those articles and letters quoted in this article, and noted
with an *in these footnotes can be obtained in full by writing the Institute
of Archaeology, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI 49104 and ask
for the "Durupinar file." William Shea, "To Whom It May Concern,"* a letter,
December 28, 1992, Merling, David, "Has Noah's Ark Been Found,"* a more
fully documented copy of the two articles in this series.

Wyatt, Ron, Discovered:
Noah'sArk, Nashville: World Bible Society, 1989. All page
numbers in the text, not referenced to another source refer to this book.

David Fasold's book TheArkofNoah (New York: Wynwood Press, 1989) also
claims the Durupinar site is Noah's ark. Fasold's book has circulated
primarily among non-Adventist evangelicals, while Wyatt's influence has
been with the Adventist audience. Fasold and Wyatt appear to be partners
in an attempt to proclaim the Durupinar site as Noah's ark, but since
Wyatt's claims have circulated primarily among SDAs I will evaluate his
claims. I purchased my copy of Discovered: Noah'sArk
at the local Adventist Book Center.

See also the SouthernAccent October 1992, caption under Wyatt's picture, "The Turkish
government recognizes Ron Wyatt as the man who discovered Noah's Ark."

The statement by Wyatt, arguing
for the Egyptian cubit, that Moses "would have been referring to the only
cubit he knew" (p. 14), is simplistic and ill informed. We do not know
what Moses knew, but we do know that the Near Eastern cultures were much
more complex, and knew much more about each other than he supposes. There
were trade relations throughout all of the ancient Near East. Are we to
suppose that these nations traded with each other without knowing the
common measurements of their trading partners? Moses may well have used
the Egyptian cubit but arguments can be suggested for the other cubits
as well.

"That Boat-Shaped Rock," CreationExNihilo, Vol. 12, No. 4, p. 16.

Ibid., p. 18, "The
rock types are rather exotic, but there is nothing present which must
be attributed to human construction."

For convenience I am using
the common term for these stones, but later in this discussion suggestions
are made that dispute that these stones are anchors or replicas of anchors.

The 16,945 foot Agri Dagh
is only 17 miles north of the Durupinar site (elevation c. 6,300 feet).

Dr. Terian, an Armenian by
birth, teaches at the SDA Theological Seminary and is recognized as a
world-class scholar in Armenian studies. Among his many honors, Dr. Terian
has been invited several times to lecture and research in Russian Armenia.

Standing stones are not unusual
in the Near East. For example, one of numerous examples would be the ten
standing stones found during the excavations of R.A.S. Macalister at Tell
Gezer. The Excavation ofGezer. Vol. II, London:
John Murray, 1912, pp. 385-396.

AraratReport,
No. 17, May-June i988, but reconfirmed by the author in a conversation
with Abraham Terian, January 18, 1992.

This is a better geographical
term for the area around the Durupinar site.